Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
20220041 | Primary Site/Histology--Intrahepatic Duct: How are primary site and histology coded for cholangiocarcinoma cases when the pathology only shows a liver tumor and other involvement. See Discussion. |
A common scenario is a patient has a positive CT of the abdomen/pelvis for liver mass only. Biopsy of the liver mass is positive for cholangiocarcinoma. The physician is also calling the liver tumor the primary site with histology of cholangiocarcinoma. There is no evidence of intrahepatic bile duct (C221) or gallbladder (C240) involvement which are sites specific to this histology. The hematology/oncology consult stages this as Stage IIIA, T3N0M0 intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Can we code cholangiocarcinoma with site code C220 (liver) or should we assume that C221 (intrahepatic bile ducts) would be a better code to reflect this histology? |
Assign C221 (intrahepatic bile duct) as the primary site for cholangiocarcinoma (8160/3). Our expert GI pathologist confirms that even when intrahepatic bile ducts are not specifically mentioned, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma originates in the intrahepatic bile ducts. |
2022 |
|
20220011 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology: When the only source of information states the diagnosis as two terms, one reportable and one non-reportable, separated by a "slash" (/), should we report the case using the reportable term? See Discussion. |
For example: -ultrasound of the right eye: consistent with a nevoma/melanoma; we could not find any indication that nevoma is a reportable term -bladder biopsy pathology report: severe urothelial dysplasia/carcinoma in situ (CIS) As a central registry, we receive some limited information cases like this where there is no record of treatment or possibility to follow-back to physicians for clarification, so we want to make sure we are reporting them correctly. |
If possible, try to obtain further information. If no further information can be obtained, accession the case using the reportable term, melanoma and CIS in the respective examples, when there is a single report in which both reportable and non-reportable diagnostic terms are listed with a slash and there is no other information. Most often, the slash indicates the terms are being used synonymously. |
2022 |
|
20220042 | First Course Treatment/Radiation Therapy: How should Lutathera be coded? CoC states XRT- Radioisotopes and SEER states Other Treatment. |
Lutathera is a radioconjugate consisting of the tyrosine-containing somatostatin analog Tyr3-octreotate (TATE) conjugated with the bifunctional, macrocyclic chelating agent tetra-azacyclododecanetetra-acetic acid (DOTA) and radiolabeled with the beta-emitting radioisotope lutetium Lu 177 with potential antineoplastic activities. |
Update to the current manual: Code Lutathera as radiation (isotopes NOS code 13). We will make this change in the next version of the SEER manual. |
2022 |
|
20220032 | Reportability/Histology--Testis: Is micropapillary serous borderline tumor reportable? Pathology states Testis (C621) radical orchiectomy: Micropapillary serous borderline tumor. |
We consulted an expert genitourinary pathologist who advises that micropapillary serous borderline tumor of the testis is reportable. He states "it is the same neoplasm as in the ovary. It arises from tissue (tunica vaginalis) surrounding the testis so is a paratesticular neoplasm." Please note: not all borderline tumors are reportable and this diagnosis is an exception because it is assigned /2 in ICD-O-3.2. It is reportable for cases diagnosed Jan 1, 2021 and later. |
2022 | |
|
20230053 | Reportability/Histology--Ovary/Testis: Is serous borderline tumor-micropapillary variant (8460/2) of the ovary or testis reportable? If so, what dates are applicable to the reportability changes? See Discussion. |
Serous borderline tumor–micropapillary variant (8460/2, C569) was included in the ICD-O-3 Behavior Code/term updates effective 1/1/2018 but marked as Not Reportable for 2018. There have been multiple additional updates to the ICD-O but no further clarification as to the reportability of this histology. ICD-O-3.2 currently lists serous borderline tumor, micropapillary variant (C569) as 8460/2 with no mention of reportability and no information provided in Includes/Excludes. SINQ 20220032 instructs capturing this histology as reportable when diagnosed 1/1/2021 or later and occurring in the testis. The answer indicates this is reportable due to the /2 behavior code in ICD-O-3.2, but it does not specify that it is limited to specific sites. Is serous borderline tumor, micropapillary variant reportable for ovary? If so, what dates apply? Is serous borderline tumor, micropapillary variant of the testis diagnosed after 1/1/2021 reportable? |
Do not report serous borderline tumor–micropapillary variant of the ovary (8460/2, C569) as borderline ovarian tumors are not reportable. This applies to cases 2018 and later. Do report serous borderline tumor–micropapillary variant of the testis as stated in SINQ 20220032. It is reportable for cases diagnosed Jan 1, 2021 and later. |
2023 |
|
20230045 | Reportability/Histology--Thyroid: Is a diagnosis of “angioinvasive oncocytic thyroid neoplasm with features worrisome for a poorly differentiated oncocytic carcinoma” reportable if the diagnosis comment states, additional immunostains were performed which demonstrate the carcinoma cells are positive for thyroglobulin and negative for calcitonin? See Discussion. |
Patient had a right thyroid lobectomy on 12/2022, with initial diagnosis of “thyroid carcinoma pending expert consultation for definitive classification.” The slide review documented in the addendum shows a final diagnosis of “Angioinvasive oncocytic thyroid neoplasm, see comment.” The subsequent comment states, “I would classify this lesion as an angioinvasive oncocytic thyroid neoplasm with features worrisome for a poorly differentiated oncocytic carcinoma.” The comment goes on to state, “Additional immunostains were performed which demonstrate the carcinoma cells are positive for thyroglobulin and negative for calcitonin. The diagnosis remains unchanged.” |
Do not report angioinvasive oncocytic thyroid neoplasm with features worrisome for a poorly differentiated oncocytic carcinoma based on the final, unchanged diagnosis. Worrisome is not a reportable ambiguous terminology. |
2023 |
|
20230072 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Bladder: How many primaries and what M Rule applies to a diagnosis of non-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder in 1996, followed by multifocal non-invasive papillary urothelial carcinoma involving bladder, prostatic urethra, and left ureter in 2022? See Discussion. |
An argument could be made to apply Rule M10 (timing rule which may result in reporting the case as an additional primary) because the 2022 primary included multiple non-invasive urothelial carcinoma tumors in both the bladder and other urinary sites (coded to site C689, not C679) following a long disease-free interval. While Rule M10 excludes multiple bladder tumors, does that also apply when new, multifocal urothelial tumors arise in both bladder and other urinary sites? Does the presence of any subsequent bladder tumor rule out the use of M10 and one must use M11 that indicates reporting this disease process is a single primary? |
Abstract as a new primary per rule M10, as the subsequent tumors are not limited to the bladder. Code the primary site to C689, per Instructions for Coding Primary Site, #4: "Code Urinary System NOS C689 when there are multiple non-contiguous tumors in multiple organs within the urinary system", and following Note: "The physician subject matter experts (SME) discussed the issue of coding primary site for multifocal/multicentric urinary tract carcinoma. Although the SMEs understood and acknowledged the importance of coding a specific primary site, there is no literature or criteria for determining the organ of origin for multiple tumors involving multiple urinary sites". |
2023 |
|
20230025 | Histology--Cervix: Can human papilloma virus (HPV) or p16 testing results from a non-reportable high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL)/cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN 3) pathology report be used to code histology as squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), HPV-positive (8085), if subsequent excision/resection identifies invasive SCC and no further HPV or p16 testing is done on the invasive specimen? See Discussion. |
Example #1: Cervix loop electrocautery excision procedure (LEEP) pathology: Histologic Type: Squamous cell carcinoma, HPV-associated. Histologic Type Comments: High-risk HPV testing on previous Pap test sample reported as positive for high-risk HPV. The prior Pap diagnosis was HSIL only with molecular results positive for high-risk HPV. Example #2: Cervix endocervical curettage and biopsy with CIN 3, p16 diffusely positive. Subsequent LEEP with superficially invasive squamous carcinoma (no HPV or p16 testing done). This was followed by an additional cone excision that was negative for residual malignancy and p16 testing was also negative. |
Use the histology codes SCC, HPV-associated (8085/3) and SCC, HPV-independent (8086/3) only when HPV testing is done on that specimen. Do not use previous HPV tests to code the histology. Code as SCC, NOS (8070/3) in both examples as no HPV testing was performed on the LEEP procedure specimens that identified the SCC. |
2023 |
|
20230009 | Solid Tumor Rules/Multiple Primaries--Vulva: How many primaries are accessioned when a 2023 diagnosis of keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (8071/3) of the vulva follows a previous diagnosis of nonkeratinizing SCC (8072/3) of the vulva and the timing rule (M12) does not apply? See Discussion. |
Table 19: Vulva Histologies of the Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules does not include entries for either keratinizing or nonkeratinizing squamous cell carcinoma in the “Squamous cell carcinoma, NOS” row. However, these are two distinctly different histologies per the ICD-O-3.2. All other Solid Tumor Rules schemas include an M Rule instructing one to abstract multiple primaries when separate/non-contiguous tumors are two or more different subtypes/variants in Column 3 of the Specific Histologies, NOS, and Subtype/Variants Table for the schema (e.g., Rule M6 for Lung). The timing of these tumors is stated to be irrelevant. The Notes confirm the tumors may be subtypes/variants of the same or different NOS histologies and tumors in column 3 are all distinctly different histologies (even if they are in the same row). However, the 2023 Other Sites schema appears to be missing this rule. Should these distinctly different histologies be accessioned as separate primaries? Is an M Rule missing from the Other Sites schema to address distinctly different histologies? |
Table 19 is based on WHO 5th Ed Tumors of vulva and squamous cell variants, keratinizing and non-keratinizing, are no longer recommended and are excluded from the 5th Ed. HPV related terminology is now preferred for these neoplasms. Per consultation with our GYN expert pathologist, based on the information provided, this is likely a single tumor that was not completely excised in the original biopsy. A new tumor in the same site would not appear within 8 months. If you cannot confirm two separate/non-contiguous tumors were present, abstract a single primary per M1. As for histology, the tumor showed both keratinizing and non-keratinizing features and HPV status is unclear. Per our expert, code to SCC 8070/3—keratinization or lack of does not change treatment or prognosis. Even If there is proof of separate/non-contiguous tumors, our expert still feels this is a single primary coded to SCC 8070/3. Treatment does not differ by keratinization or HPV status. Coding two primaries would be incorrect and inflate incidence rates. Per our expert, this is an unusual occurrence. The rules cover 85% of cases but there will always be situations that do not fit a rule. This case is an example of that. A new GYN specific Solid Tumor Rules module is under development and a rule to address this situation could be included. |
2023 |
|
20230020 | First Course Treatment/Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site: How should Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site be coded for cases when surgery was planned but aborted due to extent of disease seen during planned procedure? See Discussion. |
Lung abnormality on imaging prompted diagnosis on subsequent biopsy and clinical staging was documented as cT1b N0 M0. There was an attempt at resection, but the patient was found to have chest wall involvement and the procedure was aborted. How would Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site be coded in these types of scenarios when the surgery is aborted and the treatment plan changes due to the extension seen during surgery? |
For the example provided: For 2023 cases and forward, if no part of the surgery was performed, code Surgery of Primary Site 2023 (NAACCR Item #1291) as code A000 or B000 (no surgical procedure of the primary site). Code Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site (NAACCR Item #1340) as code 2 (surgery of the primary site was not recommended/performed because it was contraindicated due to patient risk factors (comorbid conditions, advanced age, progression of tumor prior to planned surgery, etc.). In contrast, if any part of the surgery was performed, assign the Surgery of Primary Site 2023 (NAACCR Item #1291) code that best reflects the extent of the surgery performed. Code Reason for No Surgery of Primary Site (NAACCR Item #1340) as code 0 (surgery of the primary site was performed). Use text fields to record the details. For cases prior to 2023, apply the same approach using Surgery of Primary Site (NAACCR Item #1290) instead of Surgery of Primary Site 2023 (NAACCR Item #1291). |
2023 |